Why young couples aren't getting married -- they fear the ravages of divorce

Dec 18, 2011

With the share of married adults at an all-time low in the United States, new research by demographers at Cornell University and the University of Central Oklahoma unveils clues why couples don't get married  they fear divorce.

Among cohabitating couples, more than two-thirds of the study's respondents admitted to concerns about dealing with the social, legal, emotional and economic consequences of a possible divorce.

The study, "The Specter of Divorce: Views from Working and Middle-Class Cohabitors," is published in the journal Family Relations (December 2011) and is co-authored by Sharon Sassler, Cornell professor of policy analysis and management, and Dela Kusi-Appouh, a Cornell doctoral student in the field of development sociology. (http://bit.ly/sJqeFa).

Roughly 67 percent of the study's respondents shared their worries about divorce. Despite the concerns, middle-class subjects spoke more favorably about tying the knot and viewed cohabitation as a natural stepping stone to marriage compared to their working-class counterparts. Lower-income women, in particular, disproportionately expressed doubts about the "trap" of marriage, fearing that it could be hard to exit if things go wrong or it would lead to additional domestic responsibilities but few benefits.

The study also found working-class cohabitating couples were more apt to view marriage as "just a piece of paper," nearly identical to their existing relationship. They were twice as likely to admit fears about being stuck in marriage with no way out once they were relying on their partners' share of income to get by.

The authors hope that their findings could help premarital counselors to better tailor their lessons to assuage widespread fears of divorce and to target the specific needs of various socioeconomic classes.

A new study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that serial cohabiters are less likely than single-instance cohabiting unions to result in marriage. Similarly if serial cohabiters marry, divorce rates are very high. ...

After a separation or divorce the chances of marrying or cohabiting again decrease. In particular, a previous marriage or children from a previous relationship, reduce the chances of a new relationship. Moreover, the prospects ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- According to a University of Missouri family researcher, there is no “typical divorce.” Realizing this, friends and family members of people experiencing divorce should be aware of the appropriate type ...

Recommended for you

Why does time seem to crawl if you're waiting in line at the post office, but hours can fly by in minutes when you're doing something fun? A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research examines the factors that determine how co ...

Why do some consumers make choices based on their feelings instead of rational assessments? According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, consumers who consider themselves independent are more inclined to rel ...

Why is it so hard for consumers to save money? According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, consumers are often impatient and do not think about the long-term consequences of spending money. ...

How do consumers react to products with diverse online reviews? According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, a mix of positive and negative reviews can benefit products that are evaluated based on person ...

If you're traveling at 60 miles per hour, just a few milliseconds can mean the difference between life and death when you need to come to a quick stop. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, driver ...

I think that Americans should just give up and confine themselves to having gay sex in airport bathroom stalls like anti-homosexuality crusading Republicans.

The American experiment is a social, political, and economic failure.

I find it most interesting that America started to go down the toilet when American Christians started their campaign to take their country back to the good oll days of cattle rustling, gun slingers and strict observance to the bible.

You know... The good oll days that never existed anywhere but Hollywood westerns.

admit fears about being stuck in marriage with no way out once they were relying on their partners' share of income to get by.

So raises the question - aren't you then relying on the income already, even if just living together? In fact this is one of the big excuses - we want to save money by combining our income.

the social, legal, emotional and economic consequences of a possible divorce.

So what happens when you break up even if just living together? Isn't it the same? You can still have children go thru the same emotional turmoil as when married.

viewed cohabitation as a natural stepping stone to marriage

Statistics often quoted by counselors show that living together before marriage actually increases the odds of having a divorce!

God created marriage to be a reflection of the relationship between Himself and us - a PERMANENT union that will never be broken. Sinful human beings, having rejected their creator are now seeking their own broken ways.

I've seen the opposite of this happening. I've seen people getting married in their teen years (which is pretty stupid, really). Everywhere you look, people are rushing into it these days. I'm in my 20's, still single, but it's mainly because I haven't found the right person...

Saying people are fearful does not make them fearful, but it does make our leaders incompetent. I don't know a single individual who is afraid a terrorist will harm him or his family, but our leaders think we are all wetting our pants in fear of terrorism.

I like how the ancient concept of "marriage" has managed to become conflated with some silly government contract. And people wonder why it's become so cheapened. People shouldn't be staying together just because of the fear of a gruesome legal divorce or the contract's financial benefits.

Saying people are fearful does not make them fearful, but it does make our leaders incompetent. I don't know a single individual who is afraid a terrorist will harm him or his family, but our leaders think we are all wetting our pants in fear of terrorism.

You are a liar. You most certainly know people that are afraid of terrorists.

I have seen enough of my friends marry and divorce before they were even 30 that I do not want to partake in the financial fallout that inevitably follows. Divorces have left several of them on the streets, because it seems if you're a woman the courts only listen to you. This article is spot on.

Saying people are fearful does not make them fearful, but it does make our leaders incompetent. I don't know a single individual who is afraid a terrorist will harm him or his family, but our leaders think we are all wetting our pants in fear of terrorism.

@dogbert. . . .same here. . .I have friends who are Christians, Muslims, atheists. . .you name it, and none of them are afraid a terrorist is gonna get them. And Homeland Security is designed to limit freedom of normal citizens anyway and promote sexual groping, while bin Laden could've been walking around LAX airport after 9/11 and nobody in TSA would've noticed except for his turban. Obama WANTS everyone to be fearful so that everyone will cling to and be even MORE dependent on government while he rides into town on his white horse to save the day. . . .yeah right. . .LOL

If you are considering marriage to someone who you are in any way afraid of, or of their potential actions that might harm you, then, dah, you should definitely NOT get married to them. Just walk away. And the sooner the better. Jeez!

Marriage is just a way for the government to charge you a fee to have sex without being busted for prostitution.

Damn you beat me to it. Yes marriage is just legalized prostitution. Except hooking has a performance clause. Now marriage doesn't even imply consent, or anything at all for that matter. It's just a necessary step for divorce after years of sexless captivity.

The article failed to mention the multiple government programs which are available to unwed mothers but not to married mothers. Nor did it mention the tax penalties associated with marriage.

They weren't talking about motherhood, they were talking about marriage. Oddly, they also didnt talk about how here in china, many girls attitudes about sex and relationships are liberalizing very quickly. You would think that would surely make it into the article.

LOL. . . .I remember a comic postcard from back in the 60s of a couple down at the beach. The wife was this huge creature that had layers of fat falling out of her bathing suit. She had fallen on top of her husband, ( a skinny, bald-headed mousy type), and only his head was sticking out from the crack of her butt. Just seeing that picture gave me nightmares, and I almost swore never to get married. . .but I later met this beautiful slim young woman and married her.That postcard turned me off to marriage, but a change of heart gave me the best years of my life.

"Marriage is just a way for the government to charge you a fee to have sex without being busted for prostitution." - Argiod

Well.. No...

Marriage is a legal joining of the rights and obligations of two individuals, and it is often accompanied by a public ceremony in which both parties take an oath to take responsibility for the welfare of each other - and by implication the welfare of their children until they reach adulthood.

Going against this public pledge is seen as a violation of a contract between those entering into it and society at large. It is as if a debt to society has gone unpaid.

The problem with this pledge is that it runs counter to the nature of people who have evolved to pair bond not for life but until the children produced by the mating of the pair are raised to adulthood - which would be 12 to 14 in the wild.

People get bored with each other. They get a 7 year itch. The frequent copulation of the early relationship falls off as the children cont..

Modern culture still requires that couples take responsibility for each other, and more importantly take responsibility for their children. But modern Capitalist culture has thrown a rock into the mix by force feeding the population that consumption and work to fuel that consumption are more important than raising children.

As a result the reasonably stable single wage earner families of the past have been replaced with double or triple wage earning families of today in which there is inadequate time available to raise and properly socialize children.

The result has been destruction of the social order and large increases in criminal social dysfunction - particularly among the young.

There are those who blame this dysfunction on the decline in marriage. But in reality both failures are the result of excessive Capitalism, driving excessive Consumerism.

Except if you are poor and lonely .. otherwise theres some great brothels and night clubs here in Sydney ... oh thats right prostitution is unlawful in much of the USA. Waahahaa .. no wonder Yanks are wankers!!

Oops I forgot, most Americans believe that God literally created everything and hold the Bible to be true. Don't do it ... you'll go blind. LOL!

God created marriage to be a reflection of the relationship between Himself and us - a PERMANENT union that will never be broken. Sinful human beings, having rejected their creator are now seeking their own broken ways.

So why he doesn't call, send me flowers, help a bit around the house? He just threatens to burn me if I upset or contradict him. What a terrible husband! A bigamist too, he's already married. http://en.wikiped.../Asherah

LOL. . .damn. . .there's an awful lot of bitterness and vitriol displayed here. Guess I was just one very lucky guy to have found the right woman to marry, and she was always ready and willing for great sex.. No problem there.Didn't know Yanks are wankers, though. Maybe all that bitterness gets into the wank and has to be wanked out, eh?A wanking Yank. . . .whoa

The article failed to mention the multiple government programs which are available to unwed mothers but not to married mothers. Nor did it mention the tax penalties associated with marriage.

They weren't talking about motherhood, they were talking about marriage. Oddly, they also didnt talk about how here in china, many girls attitudes about sex and relationships are liberalizing very quickly. You would think that would surely make it into the article.

The China comment was meant to be sarcastic. It was meant to be as irrevelant as the mother comment.

A friend of mine long time ago was dating a girl since high school. He got drafted and sent to VietNam and after about 6 or 7 months, he got a "Dear John" and told him that she had met some college guy from Georgia Tech and wouldn't be writing to him anymore. We're there in the jungle and the guy flips out, bawling his eyes out and wanting to do some serious damage to his girl's new boyfriend. The other guys and I told him that don't worry about it; that he could take care of the whole thing when he got home to Arkansas. But a few weeks later he stepped on a mine and got blown to pieces. Sometimes, I wonder if he hadn't gotten that letter, he woud've been more careful and still be here. I don't know. I guess things just tend to work out that way for some.

No I don't know anyone who is afraid a terrorist will harm him or his family.

LOL, you'll never admit it, but I'd love to know what mental gymnastics you have to go through to say that sincerely. Unless you aren't being sincere.

Anyway, yes you are lying. You must know very few people or be in some region of the US that never found out about 9/11. You're also clearly a creationist and a conservative, so you're telling me you've never encountered someone that is frightened by terrorism, specifically the Islamist variety?

Is anyone you know afraid of Muslims? Bet you won't answer that question.

@Bluehigh

And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

I see you are getting a little more subtle with your genocidal thoughts. I guess now you are self-conscious enough to remove the word "cull" from your rhetoric. Most of us can still see through it though.

I remember when this forum rarely if ever had any political garbage in it. Tell me, Vendicar Decarian and FrankHerbert, how much does MoveOn.org and the rest of the liberal political machine pay you to spam a science forum with politics? If it's good pay I might get on board with it myself.

At least FrankHerbert occasionally has some thoughtful and topical input; Vendicar Decarian is the most obvious troll besides marjon/ryggesogn and kevinrts.

On the subject of why the young aren't marrying as much these days, I think they have found the right answer - most I know, myself included, are averse to the notion of divorce and in the case of the guys, how profitable it is for women to divorce. That's just anecdotal from those I know, but I agree that marriage should not need a legal and binding contract when--I thought--it is supposed to be a natural response to the desire to procreate and to a series of long-lasting hormonal imbalances in the brain.

I ran out of room in that last post, but I would like to make it clear that I support neither Republocrats nor Demoblicans, and the fact that anyone would lean 100% in one direction is laughable and suggests an aversion to reality. Neither party is your friend, neither party is for smaller government and neither party cares about the Constitution upon which the U.S. was founded. I would hope those interested enough to read science articles would be aware enough to realize that politicians are unilaterally opposed to helping anyone but themselves. The primary goals of both parties are to make their positions more profitable and desirable for themselves and their successors, human rights be damned.

Also V_D, that you continue to capitalize "Conservatives" suggests you may actually be talking about the Canadian right-wing party, as there is no such capitalized faction in U.S. politics. Just sayin'.

but I would like to make it clear that I support neither Republocrats nor Demoblicans, and the fact that anyone would lean 100% in one direction is laughable and suggests an aversion to reality.

I would say I agree too, but I would say you possess an aversion to reality if you can't realize that at this juncture the one isn't at least a slightly better option than the other. You are falling into a "the model is more real than reality" trap. You have a model of the two parties and you are sticking to it even when it's not accurately reflecting reality.

I am very aware that both parties pick and choose the aspects of the Constitution that they feel helps them. This is evidenced by a near universal opposition to an equal congressional apportionment amendment. An amendment so important the Constitution would not have been ratified had it not been explicitly promised to the states by the Philadelphia convention. It was "Amendment the First" on the Bill of Rights. That says something

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.